During an assessment under our new approach
Our view of the service
About the service
Bridge Court is a domiciliary care and extra care housing service that provides personal care to people who are living in their own homes or are tenants. There were 20 people using the service at the time of the inspection.
Who the service is for
This service provides support to younger and older adults who may have a range of needs including learning disabilities, mental health needs and or a physical or sensory disability.
We assessed the service against ‘Right support, right care, right culture’ guidance to make judgements about whether the provider guaranteed autistic people and people with a learning disability respect, equality, dignity, choices, independence and good access to local communities that most people take for granted.
At the time of the assessment, the service was not supporting any autistic people or people with a learning disability, but the provider had regard to ‘Right support, right care, right culture’.
Key findings
We carried out this assessment on 8 and 9 September 2026. This service was previously rated as good. We carried out this assessment to confirm whether the rating of good remains accurate. This report does not provide detailed information on areas where we found practice continues to meet a good standard. Instead, our findings focus on any areas where the service needs to improve or where we found exceptional practice.
People received safe care. People’s needs were assessed alongside them and with those important to them before they started using the service. Care plans and risk assessments were in place, based on people’s individual needs that covered areas such as mobility and eating and drinking. A staff member told us, “We have access to all people’s records, and we can read it at anytime, if anything changes, the plans are updated and we are made aware.” Care was reviewed with people and those important to them to ensure it remained relevant. Staff had been safely recruited and had the skills, knowledge and training to support people ensuring their care needs were met. Staff spoke confidently about the training they had received and 1 staff member described this as, “Good quality.”
The provider had developed a culture based on learning and when needed incidents were reviewed to identify areas for improvement. Staff told us information and learning was shared with them through their supervisions and in team meetings. There were effective systems in place that ensured people received their medicines safely and when needed. Staff confirmed they had received training to administer medicines and their competency was regularly checked. One staff member said, “It’s always reviewed and if you make an error its more often.” There were effective systems in place to safeguard people from abuse.
There were enough staff available to support people and people received their calls at the correct time and for the correct length. People were treated in a kind and caring way by staff who knew them well. Staff ensured people’s dignity was maintained and where people could do tasks for themselves, they were encouraged to do so. Staff spoke of the importance of considering people’s individual needs. One staff member said, “We each take each person as they come and see what is important to them, we can then build on that.”
People’s health needs were assessed, and plans were in place that considered this. Staff worked alongside professionals where appropriate to deliver care for people and promote positive outcomes. Staff confirmed they felt supported and listened to and had the opportunity to attend staff meetings where they could discuss people’s care and raise any concerns. One staff member said, “I am happy here, it’s a good place to work.” The provider had created a culture where staff felt confident to raise concerns and there were whistleblowing procedures in place.
Care records considered people’s communication needs and plans listed people’s preferred methods of communication, the registered manager confirmed information was available for people in different format if they needed this.
There was information available that showed when people could consent to their care or when they may need support with this. However, improvements were needed to ensure the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 were consistently completed. Care records did not always demonstrate that when required, mental capacity assessments and best interest decisions had been completed in line with the Act.
There were systems in place to monitor the home and care people received, however improvements were needed to ensure these audits were effective in identifying all areas of improvements such as discrepancies with documentation and when further detail on people’s care was needed.